CriticSociety- film reviews

Review

Balls of Fury

Director

Robert Ben Garant

Year

2007

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Friday, August 31, 2007

A former professional Ping-Pong competitor Randy Daytona is sucked into its underground world when an FBI agents recruits him for a secret mission. Starring Christopher Walken, George Lopez and Maggie Q.

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Hairspray

Director

Adam Shankman

Year

2007

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Thursday, August 30, 2007

John Waters’ 1988 film Hairspray inspired a stage musical that has become a motion picture now and one of the most entertaining films of the year. It’s a colorful, bombastic show, and one that intends to make the audience forget all their worries for a little while, while giving a message of tolerance in all regards. It’s good, clean fun.

The story is set in Baltimore during the 60s and stars Tracy Turnblad (Nikki Blonsky), a chubby girl who dreams of joining “The Corny Collins Show”, a local teen dance TV show that would never cast her, since it’s full of prejudice. Its producer, Velma Von Tussle (Michelle Pfeiffer), wouldn’t care that Tracy is actually talented, because she wants only white beauties on the show (except on “Negro Day” of course), and does everything to make her daughter Amber (Brittany Snow) shine on top of everyone else. Velma is a former local entertainment queen, and she still shines more than anyone around. So does Pfeiffer: she’s prettier than ever, more energetic, and full of punch, she’s got it! Brittany Snow is unsympathetic and rather opaque, as required by the role, and she’s pretty good at it.

But Tracy has got it, and everybody who meets her knows it. Her mother Edna (John Travolta), however, doesn’t quite believe it’s possible. She discourages her daughter from having such dreams, while her husband Wilbur (Christopher Walken) does exactly the opposite. Tracy is a happy girl who sings along to the tunes of everyday life in Baltimore, and she just can’t be dispirited. When she meets a bunch of Negro guys in detention at school, and learns to dance like them, she’s spotted by Link Larkin (Zac Efron), her crush who’s both in school and on the TV show, who recommends her to Corny himself (James Marsden), and soon she’s on the show!

You have to see Travolta to believe him. He’s no Divine, the famous transvestite who played Edna in the original film, but his approach to the role is completely different: he plays it straight, but Edna is hilarious, so he’s hilarious without exaggerating. Every expression on “her” face, every whine, every mood, it’s all very enjoyable, sometimes causing top-belly laughs. Travolta shines as ever, and dances and sings as ever, and he’s probably the best the film has to offer.

But that’s a very bold statement. This very colorful film has enjoyable music to spare, spectacular dance numbers, and many good performances. The songs are all great, there’s not a dull one, including “Good Morning Baltimore”, “I Can Hear the Bells”, “You Can’t Stop the Beat” and the new ones including “The New Girl in Town”. There’s great work done with the songs by Marc Shaiman (music) with lyrics by himself and Scott Wittman. Shaiman also composed the film’s score. David Gropman’s production design is top-notch, with outstanding art direction by Dennis Davenport and set decoration by Gordon Sim. Rita Ryack’s costumes are well-worth praising. Makeup work is also marvelous.

Newcomer Blonsky is a real find; she’s pretty, she’s chubby, she sings great, she’s got a strong presence, she’s a star. Along the way is Amanda Bynes as her best friend Penny who falls in love with African American Seaweed (Elijah Kelley) much to her uptight mother’s (Allison Janney) dismay. It’s all in good fun. Bynes is hotter than hot. Oh baby suck that lolli.

You gotta fall too much in love with the songs and overall mood to overlook the fact that the plot is terribly thin. Antagonism is nearly inexistent (not to say Michelle Pfeiffer doesn’t do a spectacular job with the little material she’s got) and everything just shines and moves towards the positive all the time. I found it boring midway through, but music kept helping to the very end. The climax, however, also climaxed the implausible. It’s a messy and totally unbelievable dance number where most characters are involved, and even a resolution involving Seaweed’s sister Little Inez (Taylor Parks) stretches the credibility. Every sequence involving Motormouth Maybelle (Queen Latifah), Seaweed and Little Inez’s mother, seems out of place, despite the fact that Latifah shines more than ever. There are many awkward moments, to be perfectly honest. Editor Michael Tronick, who does a good job in general, misses terribly sometimes, particularly when he mixes a quiet sequence involving Pfeiffer and a musical one involving Latifah. Doesn’t work.

The impressive cast also includes hilarious Jerry Stiller and some cameos, the most notable being Waters’ as a flasher in the street.

Quite a show!

“Big ain’t the problem in this family, Wilbur.”

Gon C Curiel en Twitter | CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Other reviews of Hairspray (2007): Morris

Review

The Night Buffalo

Director

Jorge Hernandez Aldana

Year

2007

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Wednesday, August 29, 2007

Frequent readers of this site might get the idea that I am too condescending as a critic and that I like almost everything. That’s far from the truth; since this is not my actual profession I try to avoid stinkers like the plague. I usually have a good idea of what movies might work for me or not, and even then I sometimes give some possible duds a chance. That said, I also like to think I am a supporter of my country’s filmmaking industry, and as such I try to see everything from Mexico that seems remotely watchable. That was the case with The Night Buffalo, a flick that comes with an enviable pedigree but which has become easily the worst movie I’ve seen this year. I can’t even feel pity for it; it’s just hate that comes to mind.

Manuel (Diego Luna) is having an affair with Tania (Liz Gallardo), the girlfriend of his best friend Gregorio (Gabriel González). The latter was put in an institution after diagnosed with schizophrenia and was just released, only to commit suicide soon after. Before passing he left Manuel a box filled with photos, letters and pieces of papers that start to haunt him to a breaking point.

Pic was directed by Jorge Hernandez Aldana, based on the novel by the acclaimed Guillermo Arriaga, which was turned into a screenplay by both. I have no idea if the book actually made any sense or if there was a point to it; maybe I just didn’t get it but I’m not afraid to say it and I certainly don’t think I’m alone. The movie that was born from it is an utterly pretentious mess. I’ve actually read interviews with the director and writer/producer in which they try to explain what the story is about and its significance (something about love and sexuality and obsession and youth), but even then I don’t get it. I try to think back and see if I missed something, if it was so profound that only a few will catch the drift, but it’s useless.

This is essentially the story of a no-good guy (why does he always seem to have free time by the way?) who for some reason is a (destructive) chick magnet but who can’t seem to find happiness in the arms of anybody, much less in those of his supposed true love, Tania (a truly enigmatic character, and not in a good way), because he’s haunted by the memory of his dead friend. There’s also a thriller element when he starts to receive letters from an anonymous source that link him to both Gregorio and Tania, but even this aspect is preposterous and totally uninteresting. The best bits in the movie belong to the flashbacks when we can actually witness his relationship with the much more interesting Gregorio, but they go nowhere.

The title comes from a reference by Gregorio in which he states that he is haunted by a buffalo at nights. He also thinks that earwigs are taking over his body. And none of this matters really. I tried to find an allegory, a metaphor, anything, but couldn’t come up with anything.

Oh, and sex plays a very important role in the story. Manuel and Tania are shown getting it on so many times that it becomes laughable. He also has encounters with two other girls for apparently no other reason than to show he is a sexually active guy. Like I cared…

Production values are merely ok for the type of story being told, with a very gloomy atmosphere courtesy of Héctor Ortega’s cinematography and Diana Quiroz’s production design. The score by Omar Rodriguez-Lopez is exasperating; it only makes the movie seem longer than it is, and believe me, it’s interminable.

Performances are as perfunctory as the feelings the movie exudes. Diego Luna, an actor I dislike because he always seems to be playing a variation of the same character, is as ho-hum as usual. Only signs of life come from newcomer Gabriel González, who does a lot with very little. Liz Gallardo is stiff as a wooden stick, and a small appearance by local sensation Camila Sodi suffers from a case of gratuitous nudity at its worse.

I admire Arriaga and his writing, I do, but I’ve always thought he is way too pretentious for his own good and every movie he’s been attached to has suffered from this illness to worsening degrees. I hope this is the tilting point and that it all goes upward from here.

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Mr. Brooks

Director

Bruce Evans

Year

2007

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Tuesday, August 28, 2007

Mr. Earl Brooks (Kevin Costner) is a well-to-do family man: he’s got a loving wife (Marg Helgenberger) and a pretty daughter (Danielle Panabaker) and he’s successful and wealthy. Everybody loves him. He’s also a serial killer. His impulse to kill can be as controlled or out of control as any addiction, and this one comes in the form of his imaginary alter-ego, Marshall (William Hurt). It works in a particular way: Marshall doesn’t take over, but instead holds conversations with Earl, in a way that Marshall seems completely sick and Earl struggles against him. But then it is Earl who kills, and seems to enjoy it even more than Marshall. Earl tries hard though. He attends Alcoholics Anonymous sessions and prays their prayer every night and hopes that the urge will not come again. But it’s a sickness, and he loves it, and he falls once again. And this time, someone sees him.

The witness is one Mr. Bafford (Dane Cook), or Mr. Smith, as he calls himself to Brooks. He blackmails Brooks into taking him to his next killing, which Brooks agrees to in a sporting manner. Marshall is getting worried that Brooks is getting careless, but it’s perhaps an urge of Brooks’ to get caught and put an end to all this. He doesn’t love being the “Thumbprint Killer” any longer. There must be a way to stop it.

On his tail is Detective Tracy Atwood (Demi Moore), who’s got her own problems. The stories of Brooks, Bafford and Atwood come together in an interesting way, every one reaching a crossroads that depends on each other. Genres are mingled and results are mixed. It’s a fun ride, but not always effective, not in every department anyway.

Costner and Moore have been uneven in the past few years to say the least, but they have always provided quality in their performances, they’re important Hollywood figures like it or not, and it’s nice seeing them in a little movie like this, giving solidity to the procedures. People usually forget how peculiar William Hurt’s career has been. After being awarded and highly praised in the mid-80s, he got lost in an ocean of not-quite-as-good films, sometimes good ones but without much relevance, sometimes commercial ones, but usually in supporting roles, getting lost in the mix. Lately he’s got some notice and even award recognition again. Once again, in Mr. Brooks, he shines more than anyone else. His performance is eerie and outstanding. He makes the most of a unique role. He’s fantastic.

The same can’t be said about Dane Cook, but how could he make that character better? He’s got a chance to play with frustration, but this repeated feeling is mostly the audience’s, in the dullest aspect of the film: Brooks keeps disappointing Mr. Smith, and that’s just not fun. We spend more time wondering what Brooks is up to than feeling anything for Mr. Smith. It pays off, but too late.

Editor Milos Wright and composer Ramin Djawadi surely didn’t have it easy, but did quite a good job: the script by Raynold Gideon and director Bruce A. Evans calls for a thriller, then a drama, sometimes even a comedy. Most of it works, but it is uneven. Since Moore’s subplot is the one that works the least, she has a hard time convincing us of her obsessions and ghosts. It all ends up in Costner’s hands, because his character is by far the most interesting, and it’s not that we root for the bad guy, but for the most empathic character.

Murder is here, there, and everywhere in this film. There are countless blood-thirsty characters here. Murder’s seen from many viewpoints, appreciated for different reasons. In that and many ways, Mr. Brooks is quite original, and more enjoyable than not.

“I love what you’re thinking.”

Gon C Curiel en Twitter | CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Other reviews of Mr. Brooks (2007): Morris

Review

No Reservations

Director

Scott Hicks

Year

2007

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Monday, August 27, 2007

I had no intentions to see this movie until I started to hear good word-of-mouth from friends and relatives and decided to take my parents for a nice day out. It sure seemed like a pleasant movie from the outset: good-looking actors, bullet-proof story and a lot of heart. The movie ultimately delivered on all those terms, if a bit too much for its own good...

Kate (Catherine Zeta-Jones) is a successful chef with no social life whatsoever. When her sister dies she is left to take care of her niece Zoe (Abigail Breslin) and her life is turned upside down. To make matters worse her boss Paula (Patricia Clarkson) hires a new sous-chef, Nick (Aaron Eckhart), who is free-willing and everything Kate is not. You can figure out the rest.

No Reservations (a rather lame title) is a remake of the beloved 2001 Italian/German Bella Martha, adapted by Carol Fuchs for the American remake and directed by Scott Hicks. I haven’t seen the original so I can’t compare them, but I can see how this story must’ve worked better in a European setting than it does after being Hollywood-ized.

The main problem is that even though the story is unsurprisingly predictable, the journey is not that interesting or charming. We love the characters because we’re told to love them, we want them to be happy because they must have a happy ending; everything is telegraphed and there is barely any sign of genuine emotion throughout the whole thing. Every scene feels perfectly scripted, rehearsed and devoid of any kind of naturalism or down-to-earth aura. It all felt artificial to me. But hey, we sure want them to be happy!

Some of the aunt/niece scenes are about the best the movie has to offer; then it switches to romantic mode and I can’t say it comes off as well in that department. Sequences involving the making of high-cuisine dishes (which, to my surprise, are far few and between) are also illustrious and fun to watch. We can feel Kate’s passion for food at the beginning and food is present all the time, but many possible allegories could’ve come out of this fervor and they’re left unexplored. It is a simple-minded movie that is neither boring nor offensive, actually it is entertaining; but that’s about it.

Stuart Dryburgh’s cinematography is certainly beautiful and Philip Glass’s score (bearing his trademark style) is fitting.

Actors all-around do their best with the material they’re given. Zeta-Jones is watchable and appealing, but never more than that. Aaron Eckhart, an actor I truly respect, is good as well, although his hair and thinness kept me a little distracted from his actual performance. Young Abigail Breslin is ok for the most part but truly shines in some highly dramatic scenes. Patricia Clarkson, Jenny Wade, Bob Babalan and many others provide solid support.

“Men!”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

The Simpsons Movie

Director

David Silverman

Year

2007

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Thursday, August 23, 2007

I used to be nuts about “The Simpsons” TV show, and I do mean nuts, but I’m one of the ones who grew increasingly disappointed by the decaying quality of the show’s scripts, relying less and less in character interaction, clever, complex jokes, and fine satire, and more and more in very basic visual puns and two-bit sense of humor. So I was scared about the movie, fearing it would be a lot like the later episodes and nothing like the originals. I went for it and was pleasantly surprised, though it’s never as clever as the show’s greatest moments, but never as hollow as the worst. It’s a good mixture of the near two decades of the show, and a fine big screen foray.

The story has Homer Simpson getting more and more selfish and careless to the point where he prefers a pig (the hilarious Spider-Pig) over his own family. Grampa had a mystical experience at church where he burbled incoherent stuff that nonetheless worried Marge. Little by little, her worries come true, as disaster hits Springfield: the pollution of its lake becomes unsustainable to the ecology and extreme measures are taken. Since it’s mostly Homer’s fault, he’s to blame, and the Simpsons become outcasts. Soon enough, they’re on a quest of their own where they’ll discover what’s really important.

Just writing this review is hard enough, because I feel like I should do justice to the series, mention a lot of things, some of which were brilliantly included while others were sadly excluded, and I think that’s a tribute to the hard work they must’ve put into making a movie. How do you sum up so many years of a TV show and make a worthwhile hour-and-a-half movie? The fact that dozens of famous characters were included, with lines and all, is outstanding.

The jokes never stop coming, even from the FOX logo featuring little Ralph Wiggum singing the fanfare. They make sure to keep the laughs coming but what I liked is that the story was intriguing and often compelling. I can’t imagine how many good scenes and jokes John Carnochan must’ve had to painstakingly edit out; his work is excellent. There’s some sentiment sprinkled throughout which, as was the case in some great episodes, really works and moves. Homer’s epiphany is an excellent segment—somewhat reminiscent of Dumbo (1941)’s pink elephants on parade—with a fantastic musical arrangement by Hans Zimmer, who composed the score (somewhat based on other tunes though, including Danny Elfman’s classic Simpsons theme). The animation is nothing spectacular but it’s fancier than the show’s, which is appreciated.

The characters don’t change much from the show, except Bart who goes through a weird phase where he seems to prefer his nerdy neighbor Ned Flanders’ ways instead of Homer’s, which doesn’t go well with the character if you ask me, but I think that’s a trend from the last few years: making Homer the star. That’s not too bad, but I miss old rascal Bart. New characters featured rather prominently include Arnold Schwarzenegger, voiced by Harry Shearer, who also voiced Schwarzenegger’s parody Rainier Wolfcastle in the series; Tom Hanks, voiced by himself; and Russ Cargill, the villain, voiced by Albert Brooks. It’s all in good fun and works like wonders. All the voice work is perfect, as expected, from such people as Dan Castellaneta, Julie Kavner, Nancy Cartwright, Yeardley Smith, Harry Shearer, Hank Azaria, Marcia Wallace, Pamela Hayden, Joe Mantegna, etc.

Many of the original writers of the series teamed up to write this adventure, and it’s a proud entry in the Simpsons phenomena. I never stopped laughing.

“Oh, why does everything I whip leave me?”

Gon C Curiel en Twitter | CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Hairspray

Director

Adam Shankman

Year

2007

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Wednesday, August 22, 2007

Musicals, such a conflicting genre: you can love them, hate them or simply tolerate them. My position varies with each one, but indifference is usually not on the table. A lot of things have to work to make a success out of one: songs, performances, staging, editing, and direction. If any of these fail it is easily noticeable and it usually downgrades the experience. So it’s hard, it’s a tough genre, but when done right it turns into pure magic, no other way to describe it. Hairspray is such an example.

In Baltimore circa 1962, Tracy Turnblad (Nikki Blonsky) is a pretty big girl who dreams of appearing in “The Corny Collins Show”, a dance-variety TV show with her idol, Link (Zac Efron). Her mother, Edna (John Travolta), is afraid she will get hurt, but her father Wilbur (Christopher Walken) supports and encourages her to follow her dream. Breaking the mold of blond, thin girls won’t be easy as the station’s creative manager, racist Velma Von Tussle (Michelle Pfeiffer), is determined to have her daughter Amber (Brittany Snow) be the one shine.

Hairspray was born as a non-musical 1988 movie written and directed by John Waters (who has a hilarious cameo here) which went on to become a highly successful Broadway show with music by Marc Shaiman. This version, directed by Adam Shankman, is based on the latter, with nods to the original movie (and cast) but now a full-blown musical. The adaptation was written by Leslie Dixon, maintaining the original story almost intact. The result is a cheerful piece of nostalgia that is almost impossible not to like.

The pic takes place in a time when black segregation was still present and this dark episode in American history is touched upon. Of course, this is an optimistic and naïve comedy, so it doesn’t delve too deeply in the matter but it doesn’t shy away from it either. It’s important to understand that this is a fanciful musical, and as such it’s colorful, over-the-top and not grounded in reality even though the characters are so well-defined that it is easy to identify with almost all of them. The optimism is also contagious even though the story is so predictable, I had a smile on my face literally from beginning to end.

It is a great asset that the movie barely drags and that’s mostly in part because of Shankman’s assured direction. The level of energy in this thing is impressive, and the musical numbers are directed and edited with gusto. Choreographies shine and we can actually see what the dancers are doing as opposed to having so many cuts that it becomes dizzying. The songs are also infectious; even though they’re not classics they are highly enjoyable. “Good Morning Baltimore”, “I Can Hear the Bells”, “Big, Blonde and Beautiful” and “You Can’t Stop the Beat” are highlights. There are also three new songs made especially for the film, of which "The New Girl in Town" provides the liveliest number.

Did I say the movie is funny? Well it is. Very.

It is also technically impeccable, with Bojan Bazelli’s cinematography, Michael Tronick’s editing, David Gropman’s production design, Dennis Davenport’s art direction, Rita Ryack’s costume design and the whole make-up team all first-rate.

The ensemble gathered for this rendition is perfect. I’m not just saying it; every single role is cast to perfection. Nikki Blonsky is a ball of fire and a true find. She holds the movie together and her performance and charisma are magnetic. John Travolta’s much talked-about role as Edna worked mighty fine for me (and I don’t even like the guy that much). He plays her as a real woman and actually looks like one; and yes, you never forget it’s him with a fat suit, but that’s part of the flick’s tongue-in-cheek attitude and it fits like a glove. Christopher Walken is a hoot as his/her husband and I really bought the two of them together. Michelle Pfeiffer has a lot of fun as the middle-aged witch and she relishes the part, a fantastic turn. Zac Efron plays the role of prince charming with the right touch. Supporting performances by Queen Latifah, James Mardsen, Amanda Bynes, Brittany Snow, Elijah Kelley, Allison Janney and Jerry Stiller are all top-notch and a pleasure to watch, just as the movie they’re all in.

“Big ain’t the problem in this family, Wilbur.”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Other reviews of Hairspray (2007): Groucho

Review

7 Days

Director

Fernando Kalife

Year

2005

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Tuesday, August 21, 2007

I don’t think this review will be too useful to anyone outside of Mexico but I’m still gonna write it because I chanced to watch the movie and liked it and thought it was worth my time to write about it and maybe give it a very slight push since it doesn’t look like it got much of it on its own… It’s a small Mexican movie from ’05 which stars two well-known local faces: Jaime Camil and Martha Higareda. I’ve heard the latter is on her way to Hollywood so who knows, this might become a curious piece if she gets to be a star up there.

The story surrounds Claudio (Eduardo Arroyuelo), who has some financial problems along with his girlfriend Gloria (Higareda), and makes a life or death decision: to bet all her family savings (half a million dollars) to make enough money to bring U2 to his town when the band has announced a concert in Mexico City. He bets the money in a clandestine spot and cheats on the mobsters by making the money disappear, so when he loses the bet and is found to be penniless they threaten to kill him. They’re about to pull the trigger when Claudio says something about not being able to bring U2 anymore… Tony (Jaime Camil), the son of the main mobster (Jorge de la Garza), hears this and convinces his father to give the guy a chance to prove himself. They grant him 7 days to get U2 to sign with him for a concert in town. The quest begins…

The premise is not only implausible, it’s plain stupid. Claudio turns out to be the brother of a now-dead organizer of such events, and not only did he not follow his brother’s steps, but he went on to lose his girlfriend’s parents’ money and risk his life in the dumbest way. But if you’re willing to believe that, the rest is easy to go with. It’s all about finding investors, selling them the idea, and then actually convincing U2 to go along. It’s more straightforward and businesslike than one would expect from the unusual start of the movie, almost like an educational film on how to and how not to get investment for a project. It’s entertaining, but nothing revolutionary.

The one aspect that becomes central to the story is Tony’s involvement. He’s a mobster’s son, and a tough guy himself, so when he decides to go every step with Claudio and help him get the investment it’s hilarious. Obviously his techniques and reactions aren’t standard practice so it’s funny but also surprising in many ways. Most importantly, Claudio has little to no faith in himself, and Tony helps him build some, and their friendship becomes authentic. You never see it coming but this becomes the main theme, and it’s actually beautiful. Also Camil is surprisingly good in this role without which the film would probably be worthless.

I’m no fan of U2 but after watching this I felt like I wanted to be part of the devotion that some characters (and obviously millions of people) have towards it. I wish the filmmakers had gained more access to footage and music of the band to use in the film, but at least they got the necessary to not have a film about U2 without any of it. The DVD box stated that Bono watched and liked the film, that it made him reflect; I don’t know how true that is, but I wouldn’t be surprised.

Not outstanding in any way but plenty delectable in many, 7 días is not a waste of time.

Gon C Curiel en Twitter | CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Ferris Bueller's Day Off

Director

John Hughes

Year

1986

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Monday, August 20, 2007

Even though I am a declared anti-80’s guy I always felt curiosity towards Ferris Bueller’s Day Off, a movie that has grown into cult status and which is referenced and mentioned everywhere you go. Not being a huge fan of John Hughes comedies a red alert was always on my head, but I finally had the opportunity to give it a look and it was, not surprisingly, a lot of fun.

Ferris (Matthew Broderick) decides to take the day off from school by faking an illness and have his parents Tom (Lyman Ward) and Katie (Cindy Pickett) totally buy it. He then opts to spend the day around Chicago with his best and demoralized friend Cameron (Alan Ruck) and his gorgeous girlfriend Sloane (Mia Sara), helping the former regain some confidence in himself.

John Hughes directed from his own screenplay which fits right into the teenage genre he tackled during the decade, although he sets a quite unique tone for this foray which is evident from the get-go when Ferris addresses the camera breaking the fourth wall. This device is employed literally until the end of the movie, and it works, giving it a highbrow tongue-in-cheek attitude that is immensely addictive.

Ferris is the kind of guy who gets away with everything and has the best luck in the world, not to mention good looks and a charming personality. Everyone likes him and everyone loves him (a situation that makes for one of the funniest running gags of the movie). So even though his mother might suspect he’s faking the illness, or even though his school’s dean of students (Jeffrey Jones) is determined to catch him, or even though his sister Jeanie (Jennifer Grey) wants to spoil his vacation, he remains unscathed at all times. Watching how everything goes well for him and bad for everyone else is quite hilarious.

Tone feels a bit awkward at times, with some scenes weirdly edited or far more prolonged than necessary. Tom’s self-discovery is also a bit annoying at times, although it gives the movie some substance it would’ve otherwise lacked. And at least one of the three main characters, Katie, is left impressively under-developed.

Pic is a great exposé of one of the most beautiful cities in the country, Chicago, and it feels like a travelogue at times, with every tourist attraction covered. I loved it though, that was the point of these guys’ adventurous day. And it all comes together at the end in a funny and suspenseful chase sequence towards the Bueller’s house.

Scenes involving Jeanie, by the way, are amongst the best of the movie. And that includes the one with a small appearance by a spot-on Charlie Sheen. Other highlights include scenes with both of their parents and an over-the-top rendition of “Twist and Shout” during a parade.

Matthew Broderick feels right at home in what definitely is one of the best roles of his career. We totally buy him as this super-guy and that’s why the movie is so successful in the end. Alan Ruck is quite amusing as Cameron, and Mia Sara looks amazing in every frame. Supporting players including Lyman Ward, Cindy Pickett, Jeffrey Jones, Jennifer Grey are all at the top of their games.

“Save Ferris.”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Witness

Director

Peter Weir

Year

1985

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Thursday, August 16, 2007

Witness was clearly the first film that gave Harrison Ford a serious dramatic leading break and it certainly paid off for him. When you see it today, it just seems your average Ford, but that’s because we’ve gotten used to his dramatic forays in which he’s usually fantastic. But back then it was a novelty, and he proved quite capable of dominating the big screen with his serious persona. No serio-comedy or science fiction for the man anymore. This famously gave him his Oscar nomination, and it’s a great performance to remember.

As I said though, the performance hasn’t aged well, now it looks average, which is what happens when someone is steadily good in the very same trade. The film hasn’t aged too well either, though I’m sure its problems were always there, but probably didn’t pop up as much in the mid-80s when cinema wasn’t at its best (with obvious exceptions). I’m saying many bold statements, but I stand by them. Nevertheless, Witness is a worthwhile trip and a suspenseful adventure, one with a contrast that’s rarely pulled off given its dramatic contrast…

The story is that of an Amish widow, Rachel (Kelly McGillis), going on a trip out of town with her little son Samuel (Lukas Haas) after the death of her husband. In the middle of their way, Samuel happens to be in the worst place at the worst time: a crime scene. He witnesses a man (Danny Glover) killing another in cold blood. Fortunately, the kid isn’t spotted by the murderer or his accomplice, so he tells the tale. Detective Captain John Book (Harrison Ford) is in charge of the investigation, and protects the kid and his mother. But when the boy finally identifies the murderer, and that identity reveals a big and dangerous secret, the boy, the mother and even the detective have to flee for their lives.

This doesn’t go easily: Book is wounded, so Rachel convinces her people at the Amish community to help him. Nursing him, she falls in love. Little by little, the attraction becomes mutual. Worlds collide, and for a while, seeming out of danger, in a world of their own, their lives change.

The story by Earl W. Wallace, William Kelley and Pamela Wallace, scripted by the first two, is beautiful in depicting the point of view of the detective, who is forced to compare his old world of violence and corruption to this insanely sanitary one. Both worlds have pros and cons, and it’s clear where each person belongs, but the contrast calls for reflection, both by the characters and by us. The result is certainly intriguing.

In the midst of this personal drama however, action and suspense interferes. The genres take a while to develop, and the changes in tone are abrupt, and ultimately don’t work too well. The message is clear, the story is told, but we’re left rather stunned by the way it’s all presented. I for one wasn’t very satisfied by either genre, even though the end result wasn’t half bad.

The cinematography by John Seale stands out, as does Maurice Jarre’s (rather dated) music score. Thom Noble’s editing is also successful though I blame it in part for the unsettling changes in tone, particularly when the procedures slow down extremely. As performances go, I enjoyed Haas’ and Jan Rubes’ (as the boy’s wise grandfather Eli) most. And I was surprised to see a young Viggo Mortensen in his film debut.

“What you take into your hand, you take into your heart.”

Gon C Curiel en Twitter | CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Mr. Brooks

Director

Bruce Evans

Year

2007

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Wednesday, August 15, 2007

Kevin Costner and Demi Moore are have-beens in the mind of many people, but one can’t deny the fact that there’s a reason both became superstars: they have “it”. And every actor has ups and downs; sometimes the drought periods last longer than they would want, but in the right roles they can shine and fill up the screen like only they know how. This isn’t a return to form for either of them, but it’s a pretty respectable try and a successful movie in its own way.

Earl Brooks (Kevin Costner) is a loving husband and father, and he also happens to be an excellent businessman. But he has a secret life in which he becomes a serial killer along with his alter ego Marshall (William Hurt). When an average guy, Mr. Smith (Dane Cook), witnesses his last murder he blackmails him into taking him along the next time he commits a crime. Meanwhile, Detective Tracy Atwood (Demi Moore) is on the track of the Thumbprint Killer while dealing with her husband’s divorce demands.

Bruce A. Evans came back to the directing chair after a 15-year absence, working from a script by Raynold Gideon and himself. The choice of material is interesting. His script and direction are both tight and intelligent, something that is actually appreciated when it comes to thrillers. For once, we do not keep pin-pointing the characters’ stupidity, but instead we are going along with them as each follows its own track. Also, despite a plot that seems straight-forward at first glance, the movie is surprisingly intricate. There are several different things going on at once, and the ending, while not completely shocking, stays true to the characters.

The most fascinating, and disturbing, aspect of Mr. Brooks is how it deals with not one, but three characters that find the rush of killing alluring or addictive. We witness Earl’s craving through his split personality presented with two characters, a device that is off-putting at first but that becomes increasingly efficient as the story moves along. Unfortunately the thread with Detective Atwood is not as interesting, although it is necessary for some late proceedings and does provide some tense sequences. That said, there’s one shoot-out near the end that stays a few seconds shy of going all Matrix on us, a weird change of tone that must’ve slipped the director.

Overall it is a well-done moody piece that presents us with interesting-enough characters doing interesting-enough things, and adding a certain twist to the serial killer genre. It is neither a great nor unforgettable movie, but it does its job.

John Lindley’s cinematography and Ramin Djawadi’s against-type score are both worth praising.

As the acting goes, Kevin Costner is excellent in the title role, underplaying what could’ve been an over-the-top character and working extraordinarily well its two sides. William Hurt steals every scene he’s in and provides a weighty presence that was necessary for his character to work. Demi Moore does nothing new, but she’s good on the role and I liked spending my time with her. Dane Cook is, I don’t know, hit-and-miss. And Marg Helgenberger appears as Earl’s wife in a nice small performance.

“I love what you’re thinking.”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Other reviews of Mr. Brooks (2007): Groucho

Review

Glengarry Glen Ross

Director

James Foley

Year

1992

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Tuesday, August 14, 2007

David Mamet’s Pulitzer-prize winning play “Glengarry Glen Ross” has been regarded as one of the best written plays with a mostly profane dialogue. It goes far in this terrain, so far it becomes almost comedic and implausible, as no one would be so excessive in their way of speaking, and certainly not a group of professionals working together. But why not? This is the story of some people who have reached their limits of anxiety and desperation, whose jobs become endangered and their position inconvenient for the firm they work in. Maybe we’d all talk that way under the circumstances if everyone around felt the same way. Truth is, once immersed in the fiction of this story, it all sounds quite natural, and Mamet’s particular ring and tone and music get as enjoyable as the best works of Joseph L. Mankiewicz and Paddy Chayefsky. Mamet’s dialogue is unique, and that’s the main element that makes Glengarry Glen Ross, the film adaptation of his play, written by himself, so special.

But that’s certainly not enough. Theater language and film language are two completely different things, and working out an adaptation of a play without making it stagy or talky is as hard as it gets, especially when you have few settings and characters. Not every year do we get a Sleuth (1972), which works for what appears to be a magical conjunction of elements, which are probably actually thought of and analyzed by the director to the point of exhaustion. Glengarry Glen Ross mildly misses in that way. It’s both stagy AND talky, and there’s nothing to do about it. It mars it, yes, but it’s its only flaw and not a big one at that. The viewer has to keep in mind that this is theater brought to the screen and that “movie magic” will have little to do with the piece’s quality.

Which, by the way, is huge. As stated, Mamet’s dialogue is simply genius, and his characters are as well. Furthermore, it pays attention to drama and gives us a terrific suspenseful story. This takes place in a real estate agency packed with salesmen whose sales are poor and no wonder: they sell worthless Florida wetlands like they’re prime estates no one would want to miss. Every salesman is different though they share the same desperation: hotshot Ricky Roma (Al Pacino), loser Shelley Levene (Jack Lemmon), scheming Dave Moss (Ed Harris) and frustrated George Aaronow (Alan Arkin). They’re all under the supervision and management of John Williamson (Kevin Spacey), who is actually selfish and inexperienced.

Salesmen have become a tradition of American drama and it’s very clear why: they’re constantly on the edge, have ups and downs on a daily basis, and their lives are based on performance and sometimes even lies.

Glengarry Glen Ross begins with an ultimatum: In an absolutely genius move, David Mamet wrote a role straight for the film, with Alec Baldwin in mind: motivator Blake, who by way of giving the salesmen a push actually insults them to the point of humiliation. His message: there’s a competition going on, to see who sells more; first place gets a Cadillac, second place a set of knives, third place gets fired. Roma will be first place, there’s no doubt about it, but the others are completely lost. What’s worse, they won’t let them have the premium leads, the Glengarry leads, those priceless contacts of highly potential buyers, so they’ll have to do with poor old leads that have proved worthless.

The action happens in only two days, actually a night and the morning after. The first half is at night, after the message is given. Roma is busy selling to an interested customer he picked up in a bar across the street, James Lingk (Jonathan Pryce), while the others see their way out of trouble: Moss has an idea, why not break into the office, steal the premium leads, and sell them to the competition? Aaronow listens to his proposition not knowing what he’s getting into. Levene is more into selling, the old fashioned way, no matter what, since his personal situation is of life and death.

The morning after, something has changed; the second half is played in real time, and it’s so vibrant it’s mesmerizing.

The whole cast explodes, in what’s simply one of the greatest ensembles cinema has ever seen. You haven’t seen anything until you see Ed Harris yell “Fuck you!” so furiously, or Pryce shake so fearfully, or Lemmon’s world crumble, or Pacino’s look on his face while an imaginary Cadillac flies away from him. Though hard to pick, the standouts are Pacino and Lemmon, with the latter particularly unforgettable, especially towards the end. Baldwin is also notable in one of the best roles of his career.

The rhythmic dialogue is matched to perfection by James Newton Howard’s jazzy score. Music and dialogue make this a wild ride, something that appears to be a musical without being one, and a rather profane one at that. I dug it.

“You've got a big mouth... and now I'm gonna show you an even bigger one.”

Gon C Curiel en Twitter | CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

The Sound of Music

Director

Robert Wise

Year

1965

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Monday, August 13, 2007

I was born 16 years after the splashing release of The Sound of Music, a movie that broke all box office records back then and which stayed in theaters for well over a year. And still it is one of the quintessential movies of my childhood, one that I’ve seen countless times and which holds a special place in my heart. Many people will tell you the same thing, for it is a crowd-pleasing flick if there ever was one; a classic in every sense of the word.

Maria (Julie Andrews) is a rebellious novice who is sent to the house of widowed Captain Georg von Trapp (Christopher Plummer) to find her way in life. She will serve as governess to his seven children, Liesl (Charmian Carr), Friedrich (Nicholas Hammond), Louisa (Heather Menzies), Kurt (Duane Chase), Brigitta (Angela Cartwright), Marta (Debbie Turner) and Gretl (Kym Karath), who enjoy making pranks and making life impossible for their care-takers. But Maria will try to win their hearts just as their father becomes more smitten with Baroness Elsa Schraeder (Eleanor Parker), who comes to visit along with their uncle Max (Richard Haydn).

Robert Wise directed from a script by Ernest Lehman, who based it on the hit Broadway show of the same name (based on the novel “The Trapp Family Singers”) and which was produced by the legendary team of Richard Rodgers and Oscar Hammerstein II. The movie starts out as a light-hearted comedy, with a touch of romance thrown in there for good measure, but eventually turns darker as the war gets to Austria. The transition is almost flawless and the movie does not feel like the three hours it actually runs.

There are two main things that make of the movie such an enjoyable ride: the performances and the songs. It’s impressive that with the exception of one or two, every tune is a classic, from “The Sound of Music” to “Maria”, “Sixteen Going on Seventeen”, “My Favorite Things”, “Do-Re-Mi”, “The Lonely Goatherd”, “So Long, Farewell”, “Climb Ev’ry Mountain” and my favorite, “Edelweiss.” The songs are so good that it doesn’t matter that most of them are played twice (or more) during the story because every time it’s in a different context, and also because we can’t get enough of them.

It’s no secret that musicals can be tiring or awkward at times. To have people suddenly burst into songs sometimes elicits an odd feeling. But this is one of those rare cases when I never felt such a thing, which says a lot about the quality of the production as a whole but most importantly about the good time I was having with it. It also helps that the movie has its heart in the right place, so we get totally invested with the characters.

Filmed on location in Austria, Ted McCord’s photography makes the movie look lavish and breathtaking. William Reynolds’s editing is good for the most part, especially during the musical numbers which are also very well-choreographed. Lee Wallace’s casting is another asset; every role is cast to perfection.

Julie Andrews, who is always amazing no matter what she does, shines in the tailor-made part of Maria. The movie rests on her shoulders and she blossoms. Christopher Plummer is also excellent as this damaged man who eventually starts to open up. The kids are all extraordinary, with Charmian Carr, Angela Cartwright and Kym Karath leaving the strongest impression. Supporting performances by Richard Haydn, Eleanor Parker, Daniel Truhitte and especially Peggy Wood as Mother Abbess are spot-on.

“You brought music back into the house; I had forgotten.”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Evan Almighty

Director

Tom Shadyac

Year

2007

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Thursday, August 09, 2007

Bruce Almighty (2003) was hilarious. I remember Steve Carell’s character there, he was funny but not yet a big star. I hear Jim Carrey declined to star in the sequel, so no big surprise that since Carell has become quite famous, they should cast him in it. Only thing: it’s just a big excuse, because he’s a newscaster (as he was) only in the first scene, and from then on all links to the previous story are forgotten. Most of the film seems like a desperate excuse to make the audience laugh, and though it pulls it off at times, it’s basically a waste of time.

Evan has become Congressman and moves to Virginia with his family to the house of their dreams. His wife Joan (Lauren Graham) and three kids (Johnny Simmons, Graham Phillips and Jimmy Bennett) are disappointed in him because he’s always too busy to spend time with them. When powerful Congressman Long (John Goodman) takes a special interest in Evan, it gets even worse. But then someone else gets interested in Evan: God (Morgan Freeman), who wants him to build an ark just like that of Noah’s, to save two of every animal from an upcoming flood!

Evan doesn’t have much of a choice. A beard starts growing in his face and he’s forced to wear tunics. Animals chase him all around. He wants to keep up at work but there’s not much God will allow. He’s taken for a crazy man but he eventually does as God bids… not that he has any choice.

Carell is hilarious but his character is not as much. The comedy is predictable all the way and every character is exaggerated. The family dynamics are hard to buy too, and totally clichéd. Goodman’s role is also totally typical. And then there’s Wanda Sykes making a sort of constant commentary on the proceedings and I totally hated her. Good thing I love Carell to make up for that.

I will admit that the story intrigued me. Apart from the comedy, I was constantly interested in knowing what God’s idea was and what was going to happen. Even though the ending is not as biblical as one could expect, it pays off well enough, though that’s not saying much because it’s horribly told.

I heard this is, to date, the most expensive comedy ever made, and no wonder: special effects are amazing, and the presence of so many animals is impressive and definitely required some digital work. I couldn’t believe what I was seeing. Too bad the material is unworthy of all this work. But you still gotta love Steve Carell and Morgan Freeman.

Gon C Curiel en Twitter | CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Live Free or Die Hard

Director

Len Wiseman

Year

2007

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Wednesday, August 08, 2007

My story with the Die Hard saga is that I adore the first one, love the second and like the third. The trend has been that I’ve liked each one less and less and I’m afraid that after a long wait of 12 years this inclination did not change with the fourth installment. I’m still a big John McClane fan though, but somehow it’s just not the same anymore.

McClane (Bruce Willis) is still working as a high ranking officer and has a daughter, Lucy (Mary Elizabeth Winstead), with whom he’s alienated. One slow night he’s told to pick up a nerdy hacker, Matt Farrell (Justin Long), and bring him to the station, but he stumbles upon henchmen that want to kill the guy and thus starts a quest to find out what’s going on. As it happens, a man by the name of Thomas Gabriel (Timothy Olyphant) and his girlfriend Mai Lihn (Maggie Q) have hacked the entire electronic system in the country with evil plans in mind, getting access to every device monitored by computers.

Len Wiseman directed from a script by Mark Bomback, who took ideas from the John Carlin article “A Farewell to Arms” and worked the story with David Marconi. I guess this article must’ve had something to do with the mastermind scheme that the bad guys have in the movie, because apart from that there’s nothing remotely original, it is explosion after explosion and just a hell of a lot of action. I certainly don’t say this in a bad light; that is exactly what I expected from the movie.

That said, I was truly disappointed regarding the John McClane angle. If you watch the first Die Hard one of the things that made it so special was that he was a normal guy placed in extraordinary circumstances, and he also happened to be very funny in a deliciously sarcastic way. By this installment he might as well wear the Superman title, and the funny has been taken down a notch, employing the clichéd device of getting him a sidekick and playing off from that. Truth is, it ain’t a bad movie, but it’s a highly generic one. I had a good time with it but I can barely remember anything after a couple of weeks have passed.

An undercurrent that I did find interesting is that of how Americans live in fear and they have reason to. If a plan such as the one devised here actually took place it would be pandemonium. It’s scary to think so much hangs in such a tight rope, although, well, this is a movie. But still…

The highlight action set piece involves McClane putting down a chopper with a car. It figured prominently in the marketing and with good reason: it’s spectacular. The rest of the action sequences are well-put-together, although they aren’t as interesting as to make us forget for a second that we know McClane will make it through.

Bruce Willis is right at home in his old role and he’s at his best when cracking jokes or being sarcastic. Justin Long could’ve been more annoying but he’s surprisingly ok. Timothy Olyphant is also good as the villain, although his work is nothing memorable, and Maggie Q provides a lot of fun and eye-candy. She can certainly kick high! Another highlight is Mary Elizabeth Winstead as McClane’s daughter. Kevin Smith appears briefly for an amusing if too tongue-in-cheek bit.

“I was out of bullets.”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Tarzan's New York Adventure

Director

Richard Thorpe

Year

1942

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Tuesday, August 07, 2007

I tell you, after Tarzan's Secret Treasure (1941) I would’ve gone insane if they had come up with another Tarzan and Jane film set in the jungle. We’ve had enough similar stories to memorize the formula and by now very little was innovative. I couldn’t have thought of a better solution for the franchise than to kick Tarzan out of the jungle and into a new environment. This is what happened in literature, and it was just logical to do it on film. I was happy to see that this was Maureen O’Sullivan’s Tarzan swan song, because she went out in style in what was one of the most original films in the series.

That’s not to say it’s good. In fact, I had too many quibbles with it, but it was still good fun. The story starts as every single one of the Tarzan movies: Explorers arrive in Tarzan’s territory with mixed to bad intentions. When they meet Boy (Johnny Sheffield) and realize what a natural animal trainer he is, they get the idea to take him to a circus in New York to make big bucks. Then natives attack, Tarzan (Johnny Weissmuller) and Jane (Maureen O’Sullivan) come to the rescue, and before you know it they appear to be dead so Boy is taken away. They’re not dead though, Cheetah saves them, so off they go to New York to rescue Boy little expecting that there will be legal issues that separate them from him… So they’ll have to follow the laws of the jungle to get him back.

If anyone’s child is kidnapped I don’t think there’s much place for puns, but Tarzan and Jane seem lighthearted enough to laugh at Cheetah’s antics, which by the way are totally disastrous, comic relief at its worst, out of place to say the least, and exasperating. Need I say more? I hate Cheetah, and there’s no place for her in New York and that’s that. Tarzan, on the other hand, is rather hilarious in the big city. He’s an early version of Crocodile Dundee and his reactions to everything ring true. Now, even though the moment he decides to act like himself and starts flying around like the still inexistent Spider-Man is necessary to the story, it feels a tad forced. By now, it’s hard to believe Jane would support such things. Worse part is it ends up becoming a typical Tarzan movie only in a different setting. But I’ll take cops instead of savages any old day of the friggin’ week.

There’s a subplot involving a nightclub singer (Virginia Grey) and Tarzan’s lawyer (Howard C. Hickman) falling in love. You never saw anything as undeveloped or unrelated to the main plot in your whole life.

Not much else to say, not really memorable performances, nothing to write home about, but good enough to see Tarzan out of the jungle, and say good bye to Jane, never before or after as pretty as the actress who plays her in this series.

“Jane lead way. Tarzan follow always.”

Gon C Curiel en Twitter | CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Reign Over Me

Director

Mike Binder

Year

2007

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Monday, August 06, 2007

I like director Mike Binder. And I don’t much like Adam Sandler, although with the right material he can be... funny. His much publicized steps into more dramatic roles have not been as successful as he might’ve wanted, but you have to give the guy some props; and even more so the people who are willing to take the risk with him. I don’t want to say this movie fits him like a glove, but the result is quite affecting and yes, it might even be more so because of his presence.

Charlie Fineman (Adam Sandler) lives in a state of shock and isolation since he lost his wife and daughters in a plane accident. One day Alan Johnson (Don Cheadle), an old friend, stumbles into him and becomes obsessed with helping him, even though his own marriage with Janeane (Jada Pinkett Smith) is in desperate need of help. A psychologist, Dr. Angela Oakhurst (Liv Tyler), eventually steps in while at the same time Alan is being harassed by Donna (Saffron Burrows), one of her patients.

Binder wrote and directed this movie which opened quietly at the beginning of the year but which certainly deserved a bit more love. It isn’t groundbreaking or essential, but it is a nicely put-together drama that stirs up genuine emotions and speaks to a current sensibility that is hard to find in movies nowadays.

Charlie comes off as a caricature as the story begins, with his Bob Dylan hair and infantile attitudes. But quietly and slowly the truth starts to surface until his character in itself personifies poignancy and desperation. Binder finds the truth behind every one of his characters, whether it’s Charlie, Alan or supporting ones such as Charlie’s parents-in-law or even a judge. I found myself truly believing in everything everyone did or does. He almost misses with the character of Donna, who at times feels like she belongs to another movie altogether, but he is able to ground her as the movie progresses.

Ultimately the one thing that holds it all together is the relationship between Charlie and Alan, as they find each other at a moment in their lives when they were figuratively crying for help. There’s a cathartic scene at the beginning of the third act which is truly heartbreaking. That scene marks the beginning of the end, an ending that is left in the open as much as life is in reality and which gives the story even more power.

Adam Sandler, I’ve got to admit, pulls it off and delivers an affecting portrait of a man who can’t stand getting out of his shell because it hurts too much. He goes over-the-top here and there, but nothing harmful. Don Cheadle, on the other hand, is an excellent counterpart and he becomes our eyes just as he shows himself to be a flawed human being as well. Supporting performances by Jada Pinkett Smith, Liv Tyler, Donald Sutherland, Melinda Dillon, Robert Klein and Mike Binder himself are all very good.

“I was stuck in Charlie world, I couldn’t leave.”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Die Hard

Director

John McTiernan

Year

1988

Rating

Reviewed by

Gon Curiel a.k.a. Groucho

Review date

Thursday, August 02, 2007

The comic action film is on a class by itself, and I think the 1980’s Die Hard has something to do with that. Even though the “genre” so to call is has existed forever and became a presence on TV in the 1970’s, it has rarely been taken as seriously as in this flick that surprisingly starred seriocomic actor Bruce Willis. Many things from the pic were long shots but it became extremely successful. Casting Willis as an action star was risky enough, but it proved brilliant. The film has become a cult classic but has always been overall praised and liked despite its many formulaic elements from just any action film in the past. How seriously does it take itself? Hardly at all. This is a film to love.

Written by Jeb Stuart and Steven E. de Souza from the Roderick Thorp novel, the story has N.Y. cop John McClane dropping by in L.A. at Christmas to see his wife Holly (Bonnie Bedelia) and their children, all of whom moved to the coast months ago on account of her very successful career. He stayed back and became rather estranged from Holly, who even uses her maiden name Gennero at work. John meets her at her office’s Christmas party in an impressive skyscraper, the Nakatomi Plaza, where no later does he meet her than they start arguing about whatever. Almost immediately, what appear to be German terrorists take over the party and make every guest a hostage – except John, who was washing up at the time, and becomes the intruders’ worst nightmare.

This is an excellent action movie and as such doesn’t take long before it kicks off and rarely stops from then on. Bullets and explosions never stop coming, and that’s a good thing. But there are two elements that make the ride much more unforgettable than just that: the fact that John is hilarious, even when he’s alone, always commenting on the situation, always with a sarcastic remark, his character going through what’s probably the worst situation in his life, his white wifebeater getting darker as he goes on; and the battle of wits that ensues between him and Hans Gruber (Alan Rickman), the terrorists’ leader.

There are hostages and henchmen, and they’re all obligatory and their role is what you would expect – and then there’s McClane and Gruber. They’re very inspired characters. Both are funny and reckless, don’t take their jobs too seriously, but are utterly professional and are never even tempted to look away from their objectives. Whenever they communicate and/or mock each other it’s priceless. Their scenes, either “together” or each on their own, are pure gold. The actors’ performances are well worth admiring: both really funny and quite believable. It’s hard not to care about both.

But there are other characters worth mentioning sprinkled here and there: Argyle, a chauffeur in the basement mostly oblivious of what’s going on (De'voreaux White), Al, a cop in the street who becomes John’s only ally (Reginald VelJohnson), and of course Holly, who’s got a lot of power on her own and isn’t just the hero’s bride.

You can sit through Die Hard and end up thinking that was a very satisfying action flick and no more, but then you’ll find that you keep thinking about it and must think back about it. Then you’ll disseminate it and realize how many poignant moments it offered, albeit not all of them as satisfying as if they were in a strictly dramatic movie, but no less effective: John’s bathroom speech (one of Bruce Willis’ most inspired moments ever, and most famous), Sgt. Al’s redemption, Gruber’s downfall, Argyle’s chance… They could easily not be there, but they are and care was put into them. Other characters, either cops or FBI or reporters or terrorists, do what’s required and are used largely as comic relief or plot devices, which is OK.

Technically top-notch and with lots of extra goodies, this is not to be missed.

“Yippee-ki-yay, motherfucker.”

Gon C Curiel en Twitter | CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter

Review

Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix

Director

David Yates

Year

2007

Rating

Reviewed by

José Ruiloba a.k.a. Morris

Review date

Wednesday, August 01, 2007

I was a bit scared before watching the latest installment of the Harry Potter saga. See, I’m a die-hard fan of the series (much more of the books than the movies), but the fifth volume is by far my least favorite. That’s not to say I didn’t like it, I would love reading about these characters even if they just studied for exams and nothing more. But I did think it had issues that would need to be resolved if an exciting movie was to be made out of it. Fortunately the job was accomplished.

Harry (Daniel Radcliffe), Hermione (Emma Watson) and Ron (Rupert Grint) return to Hogwarts amidst a cloud of uncertainty. A secret group who calls itself the Order of the Phoenix, which includes Mad-Eye Moody (Brendan Gleeson), Kingsley Shacklebolt (George Harris), Sirius Black (Gary Oldman), Remus Lupin (David Thewlis), Nymphadora Tonks (Natalia Tena), Mr. Weasley (Mark Williams), Mrs. Weasley (Julie Walters), Severus Snape (Alan Rickman) and Albus Dumbledore (Michael Gambon) among others, make their mission to protect Harry from Lord Voldermort (Ralph Fiennes) and his followers, a task that is made more difficult as most don’t believe the Dark Lord is back, including the Minister of Magic, Cornelius Fudge (Robert Hardy), and his protégé, the new Defense Against the Dark Arts teacher, Dolores Umbridge (Imelda Staunton). Harry must then form his own army inside the school to prepare for the inevitable encounter with his nemesis.

David Yates took the director’s chair this time around, working from a script by Michael Goldenberg, another newcomer to the saga, based on the J.K. Rowling novel. It has been well reported that even though this book is the longest of the bunch, the movie is the shortest one so far. This means, of course, that a lot of material was left out in favor of a faster movie. I’m up for that, even though the first time I saw it I couldn’t stop noticing the velocity by which everything moved and the many details that weren’t delved upon; I had to watch it a second time to come to terms and accept it for what it is. All said and done, I think the adaptation is good, and the movie isn’t greater simply because the source material wasn’t in the first place.

It is a compliment to Yates that the movie seems way busier than it actually is. If you break it down there really isn’t that much going on, but you wouldn’t notice it while at it. That said, Yates needs to perfect some things like the fact that he has an awkward way of staging scenes, specially regarding what he makes his actors do and how. He also seems insecure regarding his audiences’ intelligence, such as an instance in which a newspaper is seen in the background with the words “Potter” changing into “Plotter” but which is thrown into our face a few scenes later in case we’d miss it before (Alfonso Cuarón, who used this kind of clever devices in the third installment, would’ve not allowed this).

The story of Harry Potter and his friends has become increasingly darker as they grow up. The movies keep reflecting that by being more menacing and in-your-face. Long is gone the sense of wonder and magic, this is full-blown war (something that the exciting climax makes quite clear). The movie certainly allows Harry to keep transitioning, in this case becoming a leader while also dealing with several internal issues. There are also snippets dealing with romance and fights inherent to their age, but not that much. It’s a pretty straightforward flick. And no Quidditch this time around!

Technical side is almost flawless. I really miss John Williams’s score, but Nicolas Hooper does a good job. Special effects are extraordinary as usual, as is Slawomir Idziak’s cinematography. Production and art design are both top-notch, although I have a quibble with the brick-y look of the Ministry… looks like they’re stuck in the 80’s and that’s never good.

It’s funny because we see a Harry Potter movie and take its cast for granted, but if you stop and look closer you realize that it is quite an impressive ensemble they’ve been able to gather. Besides, everyone is cast to perfection, and Alan Rickman keeps stealing scenes like it were the easiest thing in the world; an award should be given to him for doing so much with so little. Unfortunately with so much going on most of these great actors are underused (Maggie Smith comes to mind), but it’s amazing to have such talented performers walking in and out of scenes all the time. New addition Imelda Staunton is a piece of inspired casting and she’s simply wonderful; so is Evanna Lynch as Luna Lovegood. The kids are all excellent, with Rupert Grint and Emma Watson a pleasure as always, while Daniel Radcliffe struggles with his stiffness but is overall ok.

“You’ll never know love or friendship, and I feel sorry for you.”

CriticSociety en Twitter | CriticSociety en Facebook

Share on Facebook | Share on Twitter